ONU: Livres & Iguais – Nações Unidas: Um bilhão se mobilizam

Livres & Iguais – Nações Unidas: Um bilhão se mobilizam

Há um ano, as Nações Unidas lançaram uma campanha global sem precedentes de conscientização pelos direitos da população LGBT – lésbicas, gays, bissexuais e trans: Livres & Iguais. O que aconteceu desde então? Assista este vídeo para descobrir.

Acesse o site da campanha: http://www.unfe.org/pt

Saiba mais sobre as ações e a campanha no Brasil: http://www.onu.org.br/livreseiguais

Security Council Resolution 2178 (2014): The “Foreign Terrorist Fighter” as an International Legal Person,

Published on November 20, 2014        Author: 

This is Part I of a two-part post. Read Part II here.


At a summit meeting of 24 September in which over 50 government representatives were heard, the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2178 (2014) which foresees measures to contain the travel of and support for persons intending to participate in terror acts, notably against the background of the rise of the group “Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant” (ISIL) and the Al-Nusra front and other affiliates of Al-Qaida.

Resolution 2178 “reaffirms” what previous resolutions since 9/11 had found, namely that “terrorism [normally committed by natural persons] … constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security” (preamble first indent; see previously, e.g., UNSC res. 1368 (2001)). In preamble indent 12, the Council defines a “new threat”, namely the “foreign terrorist fighter threat” which “includes, among others, individuals supporting acts or activities of Al-Qaida and its cells”.

Most paragraphs of the res. 2178 are, in their structure, not novel. They oblige states to adopt measures, and “ensure in their domestic laws” (para. 6) to suppress, combat, prosecute, and penalise the recruiting, organising, transporting, and equipping of individuals travelling for the purpose of perpetrating terrorist acts, e.g. in paras 2, 5, 6, 8. The obligations to criminalise certain behaviour seem, however, quite far reaching as also pointed out by Kai Ambos.

One interesting feature of res. 2178 is that it directly addresses individuals: Operative para. 1 “demands that all foreign terrorist fighters disarm and cease all terrorist acts and participation in the conflict”. The three interrelated questions discussed in this post are whether res. 2178, firstly, creates binding international legal obligations for individuals themselves; secondly, whether (some of) the resolution’s provisions are directly applicable in the domestic order of the UN Member states; and thirdly, whether the non-observance of these individual obligations constitute a crime by virtue of the resolution itself.

International individual obligations flowing from Res. 2178?

The question is whether Res. 2178 is able to impose legally binding international obligations on the individuals addressed. Is the resolution itself the legal basis for an obligation of “foreign terrorist fighters” to desist from forging identity papers, to desist from travelling to the combat field of ISIS, to recruit volunteers, and of course to refrain from committing terrorist acts, and the like?

According to the wording of Article 25 of the UN Charter, the resolutions of the Security Council appear to oblige only the UN Member states: “The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter”. In its Kosovo advisory opinion, however, the ICJ found that it could “establish, on a case-by-case basis, […] for whom the Security Council intended to create binding legal obligations.” (para. 117). The ICJ did not rule out a binding effect of Security Council resolutions on individuals in principle. It did not even limit the potential binding effect to non-state actors that enjoy international legal personality. In the Kosovo proceedings, the ICJ merely found that resolution 1244 did not give any “indication” that it was directed at the authors of the declaration of independence, but rather only at the UN Member states, the UN itself, and its organs (para. 115). The focus on a mere “indication” suggests that it would be possible to impose obligations on non-state actors where such obligations can be inferred by the circumstances, even if they are not explicit.

What speaks in favour of accepting that – in principle – a Security Council resolution, such as res. 2178, can create binding obligations for individuals? The doctrinal explanation for a binding effect of resolutions on the individuals addressed surely does not consist in any consent of those individuals subject to the resolution. Neither does the explanation lie in any presumed legislative competence of the Member states which have consented to the resolution in regard to all actors on their territory. The explanation is rather that the UN Charter, which enjoys a special legal quality (in the view of some, as a world constitution), endows the Security Council with a special authority that – within the boundaries of the principle of legality – also is effective erga omnes vis-à-vis individuals. It follows that its resolutions are in principle suitable as a legal basis for international obligations. This power of the Council flows from the Charter itself, in the interpretation given to it through subsequent practice as accepted by the UN Member states (see below), and by the ICJ in its Kosovo Opinion.

The most important normative justification for this power is the need to avoid a regulatory gap. If a Security Council resolution aims to have a pacifying effect, it must, especially in the context of fragile or failed statehood (as it is now the case in parts of Syria and surrounding regions), directly address dangerous, armed, criminal individuals or groups. It would not be sufficient and would maybe even be counterproductive if the Security Council were to call upon only the states involved to suppress the terrorist or military activities. The Council’s power to address individuals and groups must, to be effective, go beyond the formulation of purely political wishes (as opposed to binding legal orders), but whether this is indeed the case depends on a concrete resolution’s substance.

A very important limit on such direct obligations incurred by individuals is, however, the principle of legality. That principle states that the resolutions may give rise to real individual legal obligations only if those obligations are foreseeable for the individuals addressed. This is the case only if the obligations and their addressees can be derived from the wording of the resolutions with sufficient contextual determinacy, and when the resolutions are indeed published. For this reason, merely implicitly expressed obligations (as insinuated by theKosovo Court) must be viewed critically because they risk violating the principle of legality.

I submit that probably only the wording of para. 1 of Res. 2178 is sufficiently clear, and also clearly addressed to individuals themselves. The main problem seems to be the lack of definition of “terrorist act”. Arguably, an international common ground on the notion of “terrorism” has already emerged; manifest in various international legal conventions, but no undisputable customary law-based definition exists. The prevailing understanding is, for example, embodied in para. 3 of res. 1566(2004), mentioning

criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act, which constitute offences within the scope of and as defined in the international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism.

It is submitted that the reference, in res. 2178, to “terrorism” and “terrorist acts”, is sufficiently clear so as to prohibit terrorist acts (but not clear enough to justify a criminal sanction based on the resolution, see below). The resolution thus is the legal basis for everyone’s obligation not to commit terrorist acts or participate in the armed conflict surrounding ISIL.

Direct effect of Res. 2178?

What happens if a UN member state does not properly implement res. 2178 and does not adopt the legislation or administrative measures required? The Security Council’s demands are very far-reaching. For example the Council “encourages Member states to employ evidence-based traveller risk assessment and screening procedures including collection and analysis of travel data” (para. 2). Beyond this mere “encouragement”, the Council “decides that all states shall ensure that their domestic laws and regulations establish serious criminal offences sufficient to provide the ability to prosecute (…) their nationals who travel or attempt to travel to a state (…) for the purpose of the perpetration, planning, or preparation or participation in, terrorist acts” (para. 6 lit. a). The Security Council here requires the Member states to create and enforce criminal offenses which relate to mere preparatory behaviour (possibly) leading to the commission of terrorist acts.

What if a Member state’s population rejects the excessive data-collection demanded, and what if a Member state’s parliament refuses to adopt such broad and “anticipatory” criminal law provisions? Could any administrative authority, prosecutor and domestic court then directly apply the Security Council resolution?

We should at this point distinguish between administrative law-measures such as refusing a passport to travel into Syria (cf. res. 2178 para. 6), new legislative measures, such as laws requiring airlines to collect advance passenger information (para. 9), and adopting and enforcing criminal law, e.g. on the preparation of terrorist acts (para. 6).

I submit that a possible direct effect of a Security Council resolution, whether restraining individuals, as res. 2178 does, or benefiting them, should be assessed according to the same criteria as applied when examining the direct applicability (or direct effect or self-executingness) of the provisions of an international treaty, but that these criteria need some modification. Three reasons for using those criteria can be given: Firstly, from the perspective of the domestic law-applier, the binding effect of Security Council decisions resembles that of a treaty. Secondly, it could be said that the decisions’ binding effect derives from a treaty (the Charter) and that therefore their legal nature is conventional rather than unilateral. Thirdly, direct effect has also become an issue with regard to judicial or quasi-judicial decisions of international courts or monitoring bodies. Security Council decisions, in their binding effect, resemble such decisions, too.

The traditional criteria of suitability for direct application, namely unconditionality and precision of the international act (looking at its content, objective, and wording) normally do not pose a problem for Security Council decisions. In this scenario, the question of legitimacy stands in the foreground: Should the Council decision bind the domestic institutions, as precedence or at least as a normative guideline? It is submitted that the response should be guided by concern for national constitutional principles such as self-determination/democracy, legality, and legal certainty, but that the direct effect of the Council decision should not be ruled out as impossible from the outset. Domestic bodies which seek to reject a direct effect of a Council decision which specifically addresses individuals must justify this on the basis of constitutional principles.

One normative consideration relates to the democratic legitimacy of international law. If one considers domestic authorities, especially courts, as the gate keepers of legitimacy of all law which is applicable in the domestic sphere, and especially as the guardians of democratic self-government, one could argue that it is incumbent on them to safeguard these constitutional principles through rejecting the direct effect of international treaty norms. This reasoning would a fortiori apply to Security Council resolutions, because they are adopted in a non-inclusive procedure, and are binding upon third states which did not consent to them.

Leaving this aside, the most important aspect of any direct effect (besides the questions of the separation of powers, and of democracy) of res. 2178 (or rather parts of it) is the principle of legality. Under the rule of law, especially obligations imposed on individuals must be based on a clear legal basis. The question then is whether a Security Council decision constitutes a sufficient legal basis. That question is most acute when it comes to the establishment of a crime through a rule of international law (see below).

But it is also relevant for other types of obligations imposed on individuals, especially when these obligations involve the curtailment of individual freedoms and human rights. For example, the “foreign terrorist fighters’” obligation to desist from travelling to join ISIS forces requires that he does not exercise his human right to travel in this regard (Art. 12 ICCPR). That human right can only be limited on the basis of law (Art. 12(3) ICCPR: ”The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.” I submit that a Security Council resolution can constitute a law in this sense – a “law” does not always need to be a domestic parliamentary act. It can be an international act which has been applied in an inclusive and transparent procedure. It is not its “international” character but rather deficits of inclusiveness and transparency which might damage the authority of a Security Council resolution – but which can and should be overcome. Note that res. 2178 was adopted unanimously and was acclaimed by 50 states taking the floor at the summit, but still the procedure of deliberation and adoption could and should be improved.

Overall, with due respect for the principles mentioned, I do not see any reason which wouldab initio foreclose the possibility of applying Security Council resolutions directly. Notably para. 1 of res. 2178 can be applied by Member states’ authorities and courts as a basis for administrative law-type measures.

Res. 2178 is no basis for criminal sanctions

Resolution 2178 is not in itself the basis for criminalising the behaviour it seeks to suppress. On the contrary, it resembles the classic suppression conventions, i.e. international treaties imposing the obligation on contracting parties to prohibit individual forms of conduct in their national law and, where applicable, to criminalise and punish them.

So no foreign fighter-suspect could be tried and sentenced on the legal basis of Res. 2178 alone. But the reason is not, I submit, that a Security Council resolution could never – from the perspective of international law − function as a “lex” in the sense of the principle nulla poena sine lege. The reason is that the “lex” here does not in itself explicitly establish the crime, but on the contrary explicitly asks states to do to, through their domestic criminal law. Res. 2178 makes it amply clear in its wording that it does not intend to establish the criminal offence directly. It may well be that under the domestic law of some countries, the understanding of nulla poena is stricter. However, if we want to uphold a functioning system of global governance, states and scholars must develop an “internationalised” principle of legality that need not consist only in the lowest common denominator but which is informed by values of global constitutionalism.

Previous Security Council resolutions directly addressing individuals

Resolutions combatting terrorism and piracy

Previous Security Council resolutions had not imposed any obligations on terrorists or terror-suspects as such; they addressed only states (for instance, res. 1624 (2005), para. 1(a); res. 1540 (2004) on weapons of mass destruction). The same is true of all UN Security Council resolutions on piracy (e.g., UNSC res. 1838 (2008)).

Sanctions resolutions

The sanctions resolutions (both comprehensive regimes of economic sanctions and targeted sanctions) aim at influencing the conduct of individuals. However, these resolutions again oblige only States to take measures under their national law, especially to prohibit private individuals within their jurisdiction from engaging in trade, to prohibit them from leaving or transiting through the country, and to freeze their accounts (the classic one being UNSC Res. 1267 (1999) against the Taliban). The typical formulation of the Security Council is that it

calls upon all States to take appropriate measures to ensure that individuals and companies in their jurisdiction (…) act in conformity with United Nations embargoes, (…) and, as appropriate, take the necessary judicial and administrative action to end any illegal activities by those individuals and companies; (…). (random example of para. 21 of UNSC res. 1343 (2001) on Sierra Leone).

Technically speaking, the individuals here are still mediated through their states (or, in the case of the EU, through the EU).

Sometimes it looks as if the Security Council had directly imposed financial and travel sanctions on individuals, for example on individuals who recruit child soldiers, or who attack peacekeepers (see the latest sanction resolution concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo, res. 2136 (2014), para. 4). However, this resolution refers to its “mother-resolution”, res. 1807, whose para. 1 “decides (…) that all States shall take the necessary measures (…).”

The closest to directly obliging individuals to comply with a sanction have been formulas such as in res. 1474 (2003) whose para. 1 “stresses the obligation of all States and other actors” to comply with a previous resolution imposing an arms embargo in respect of Somalia.

Moreover, the sanctions committees (subsidiary organs of the Security Council as referred to in Art. 29 of the UN Charter) make decisions that are binding on individuals. For instance, the Al-Qaida and Taliban Sanctions Committee designates individuals (Res. 1333 (2000), para. 8(c)). It is mandated to consider requests for the listing and delisting of persons (See, e.g.,Guidelines of the 1267 Committee of 7 November 2002, most recently amended on 15 April 2013, para. 4(c)). The committee makes these decisions itself; for instance, it decides to delist a person on the recommendation of the ombudsperson.

Because the powers of the sanctions committees are considered to be delegated powers of the Security Council, the sanctions committees must act within the scope of recognised principles of delegation. A key precondition for delegation is that the Security Council cannot delegate more powers than it may exercise itself. The Security Council itself must therefore be entitled to impose obligations on individuals if the committees are expected to do so with legal effect.

Recommendations to individuals

Other resolutions expressly direct recommendations to individuals and groups. Several times, the Security Council has called upon private persons, NGOs, and companies to support UN sanctions policy. In regard to Sierra Leone, the Security Council “encouraged” the diamond industry to cooperate with the official government (res. 1306 (2000) of 5 July 2000, para. 10). In a resolution on the crisis after the presidential elections in Côte d’Ivoire (extension of the UNOCI mandate), the Security Council “calls upon the government and all international partners, including private companies, involved in assisting the Government in the reform of the security sector, to comply with the provisions of resolution 1980 (2011)” (res. 2000 (2011) of 27 July 2011, para. 16).

Resolutions on NIACs

The Security Council has so far imposed unambiguous strict legal obligations on individuals only in NIACs (including conflicts potentially “internationalised” through the involvement of third states or international organisations); this includes the current ISIL situation. In this connection, several resolutions have called upon not only the involved states but also other political groups and individuals to immediately cease hostilities, to comply with previously agreed ceasefire agreements, and the like (on Kosovo Res. 1160 (1998), para. 2; res. 1199 (1998) para. 1; res. 1203 (1998) para. 4). Res. 814 (1993) on Somalia addresses “all Somali parties, including movements and factions” (para. 8). Res. 1010 (1995) paras 1 and 2, demanded that the Bosnian Serb party give access to UN and ICRC personnel and respect their rights, and so on.

The practice sketched out here constitutes “subsequent practice” in the sense of Art. 31(3) lit b.) VCLT, and must therefore be taken into account when interpreting Art. 25 UN Charter with a view to determining the normative power of res. 2178.


Domestic authorities which do not want to apply para. 1 of SC res. 2178 directly would have to justify the non-application of that resolution. They should rely, in their justification, on the mentioned principle of legality which ultimately seeks to protect individual liberty.

Under due respect for the principle of legality, notably in its strict version of nulla poena, resolution 2178 surely cannot deploy any criminalising effects. But the obligations to cease and desist from all terrorist acts directly flow from the Security Council resolution 2178. It could even be argued (although with some difficulty) that the individuals’ obligation not to travel into a region to participate in the financing, planning, preparation, or perpetration of terrorist acts also flows from the resolution itself (paras 1, 6 and 8).

That would mean that a domestic authority, in the absence of a domestic boundary control law, could – from the perspective of international law − rely on res. 2178 to refuse the issuance of a passport, for example. It would have to respect international humans rights law, namely the human right to leave one’s country (12(2) ICCPR), for this. It seems as if the limits spelt out in Art. 12(3) ICCPR are prima facie satisfied, because the travel ban and control is, as argued above, “provided by law”, and seems to be “necessary” to protect national security, public order, and the rights and freedoms of others.

Fonte: EJIL

Cruz Vermelha explica as normas da Guerra

UNASUR Y ONU MUJERES ratifican su compromiso para fortalecer la igualdad de género en Suramérica

En el marco del Día Internacional de la Eliminación de la Violencia Contra la Mujer, la Secretaría General de la Unión de Naciones Suramericanas y la Organización de las Naciones Unidas firmaron el “Plan de Acción UNASUR-ONU MUJERES” que ratifica el compromiso de trabajar conjuntamente en el fortalecimiento de la igualdad de género y Derechos Humanos de las mujeres de la región.

El Secretario General, Ernesto Samper, dio a conocer que a nivel mundial las mujeres suramericanas son las más discriminadas en el ámbito laboral, debido a la informalidad del trabajo que alcanzaría una tasa del 56%.

Asimismo, recalcó que dentro de su plan de acción se plantearon 3 ejes sobre género, medio ambiente e inclusión social.  “Buscamos la transversalización de los Consejos Sectoriales, así como tener un diagnóstico a cargo de ONU Mujeres para saber el estado de la situación de género en la región”, mencionó.

De esta manera, el Plan de Acción contempla el desarrollo de una Estrategia Regional de Igualdad de Género para la Unión de Naciones Suramericanas, así como líneas de trabajo dentro de los Consejos Sectoriales del Organismo.

Este es uno de los temas fundamentales dentro de las Agendas Política,  Social y Económica que impulsa el Secretario General de UNASUR, con el fin de lograr un desarrollo de políticas que favorezcan la redistribución y reducción de inequidad en la región.

La firma estuvo a cargo del Secretario General, Ex presidente Ernesto Samper, y la Representante de ONU-Mujeres en Ecuador, Moni Pizani. Además, contó con la presencia de la Presidenta de la Asamblea Nacional de Ecuador, Gabriela Rivadeneira, y de la líder política, Minou Tavárez Mirabal,  hija de Minerva Mirabal, dominicana asesinada el 25 de noviembre de 1960 por agentes del régimen de Rafael Leónidas Trujillo (1930-1961) junto a sus hermanas Patria y María Teresa.

Por su parte, Pizani mencionó  que en Suramérica el problema de la violencia contra la mujer es un mal recurrente, “en 5 países, entre el 43 y el 63% en mujeres de 15-49 años han sufrido violencia sexual, por ello la renovación de este plan de acción para trabajar con los países para erradicar la violencia”.

Mientras que la Presidenta de la Asamblea Nacional, Gabriela Rivadeneira, recordó el proceso histórico que pasaron las mujeres para reducir las brechas de equidad y enfatizó que desde el Poder Legislativo de Ecuador se está trabajando para combatir la violencia.

El objetivo del proyecto es impulsar la cooperación sur-sur en materia de igualdad y derecho de las mujeres y brindar asistencia técnica, sobre el tema, en el proceso de fortalecimiento de capacidades de los doce países de UNASUR: Argentina, Bolivia, Brasil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Paraguay, Perú, Suriname, Uruguay y Venezuela.


San José, Costa Rica, 10 de septiembre de 2014.- La Corte Interamericana de
Derechos Humanos notificó el día de hoy la Opinión Consultiva OC-21/14 sobre
‘‘Derechos y garantías de niñas y niños en el contexto de la migración y/o en
necesidad de protección internacional’’. Esta Opinión Consultiva fue emitida el 19
de agosto de 2014 y responde a una solicitud presentada el 7 de julio de 2011 por
los Estados de Argentina, Brasil, Paraguay y Uruguay.

Al emitir esta Opinión Consultiva sobre los ‘‘derechos y garantías de niñas y niños
en el contexto de la migración y/o en necesidad de protección internacional’’ la
Corte Interamericana entendió que su respuesta a la consulta planteada prestaría
una utilidad concreta dentro de una realidad regional en la cual aspectos sobre las
obligaciones estatales en cuanto a niñez migrante no han sido establecidas de
forma clara y sistemática, a partir de la interpretación de las normas relevantes.
Mediante esta Opinión Consultiva sobre niñez migrante la Corte Interamericana
realizó una interpretación de diversos artículos de la Convención Americana sobre
Derechos Humanos, la Declaración Americana de los Derechos y Deberes del
Hombre y de la Convención Interamericana para Prevenir y Sancionar la Tortura.

De esta manera, determinó con la mayor precisión posible y de conformidad con las
normas mencionadas, las obligaciones estatales respecto de niñas y niños,
asociadas a su condición migratoria o a la de sus padres. En consecuencia,
determinó que los Estados deben considerar estas obligaciones estatales al diseñar,
adoptar, implementar y aplicar sus políticas migratorias, incluyendo en ellas, según
corresponda, tanto la adopción o aplicación de las correspondientes normas de
derecho interno como la suscripción o aplicación de los pertinentes tratados y/u
otros instrumentos internacionales.

De manera particular, en la mencionada Opinión Consultiva la Corte Interamericana
precisó las siguientes obligaciones estatales:

– Teniendo presente, a estos efectos, que es niña o niño toda persona menor
de 18 años de edad, los Estados deben priorizar el enfoque de los derechos
humanos desde una perspectiva que tenga en cuenta en forma transversal
los derechos de niñas y niños y, en particular, su protección y desarrollo
integral, los cuales deben primar por sobre cualquier consideración de la
nacionalidad o el estatus migratorio, a fin de asegurar la plena vigencia de
sus derechos.

– Los Estados se encuentran obligados a identificar a las niñas y niños
extranjeros que requieren de protección internacional dentro de sus
jurisdicciones, a través de una evaluación inicial con garantías de seguridad
y privacidad, con el fin de proporcionarles el tratamiento adecuado e
individualizado que sea necesario acorde a su condición de niña o niño y, en
caso de duda sobre la edad, evaluar y determinar la misma; determinar si se trata de una niña o un niño no acompañado o separado, así como su
nacionalidad o, en su caso, su condición de apátrida; obtener información
sobre los motivos de su salida del país de origen, de su separación familiar
si es el caso, de sus vulnerabilidades y cualquier otro elemento que
evidencie o niegue su necesidad de algún tipo de protección internacional; y
adoptar, en caso de ser necesario y pertinente de acuerdo con el interés
superior de la niña o del niño, medidas de protección especial.

– Con el propósito de asegurar un acceso a la justicia en condiciones de
igualdad, garantizar un efectivo debido proceso y velar por que el interés
superior de la niña o del niño haya sido una consideración primordial en
todas las decisiones que se adopten, los Estados deben garantizar que los
procesos administrativos o judiciales en los que se resuelva acerca de
derechos de las niñas o niños migrantes estén adaptados a sus necesidades
y sean accesibles para ellos.

– Las garantías de debido proceso que, conforme al derecho internacional de
los derechos humanos, deben regir en todo proceso migratorio, sea
administrativo o judicial, que involucre a niñas o niños son: el derecho a ser
notificado de la existencia de un procedimiento y de la decisión que se
adopte en el marco del proceso migratorio; el derecho a que los procesos
migratorios sean llevados por un funcionario o juez especializado; el derecho
a ser oído y a participar en las diferentes etapas procesales; el derecho a ser
asistido gratuitamente por un traductor y/o intérprete; el acceso efectivo a
la comunicación y asistencia consular; el derecho a ser asistido por un
representante legal y a comunicarse libremente con dicho representante; el
deber de designar a un tutor en caso de niñas o niños no acompañados o
separados; el derecho a que la decisión que se adopte evalúe el interés
superior de la niña o del niño y sea debidamente fundamentada; el derecho
a recurrir la decisión ante un juez o tribunal superior con efectos
suspensivos; y el plazo razonable de duración del proceso.

– Los Estados no pueden recurrir a la privación de libertad de niñas o niños
para cautelar los fines de un proceso migratorio ni tampoco pueden
fundamentar tal medida en el incumplimiento de los requisitos para ingresar
y permanecer en un país, en el hecho de que la niña o el niño se encuentre
solo o separado de su familia, o en la finalidad de asegurar la unidad
familiar, toda vez que pueden y deben disponer de alternativas menos
lesivas y, al mismo tiempo, proteger de forma prioritaria e integral los
derechos de la niña o del niño.

– Los Estados deben diseñar e incorporar en sus respectivos ordenamientos
internos un conjunto de medidas no privativas de libertad a ser aplicadas
mientras se desarrollan los procesos migratorios, que propendan de forma
prioritaria a la protección integral de los derechos de la niña o del niño, con
estricto respeto de sus derechos humanos y al principio de legalidad, y las
decisiones que ordenen dichas medidas deben adoptarse por una autoridad
administrativa o judicial competente en un procedimiento que respete
determinadas garantías mínimas.

– Los espacios de alojamiento deben respetar el principio de separación y el
derecho a la unidad familiar, de modo tal que si se trata de niñas o niños no
acompañados o separados deben alojarse en sitios distintos al que
corresponde a los adultos y, si se trata de niñas o niños acompañados,
alojarse con sus familiares, salvo que lo más conveniente sea la separación
en aplicación del principio del interés superior de la niña o del niño y,
además, asegurar condiciones materiales y un régimen adecuado para las
niñas y los niños en un ambiente no privativo de libertad.

– En situaciones de restricción de libertad personal que pueden constituir o
eventualmente derivar, por las circunstancias del caso en concreto, en una
medida que materialmente se corresponda a una privación de libertad, los
Estados deben respetar las garantías que se tornan operativas ante dichassituaciones.

– Los Estados tienen la prohibición de devolver, expulsar, deportar, retornar,
rechazar en frontera o no admitir, o de cualquier manera transferir o
remover a una niña o niño a un Estado cuando su vida, seguridad y/o
libertad estén en riesgo de violación a causa de persecución o amenaza de la
misma, violencia generalizada o violaciones masivas a los derechos
humanos, entre otros, así como donde corra el riesgo de ser sometido a
tortura u otros tratos crueles, inhumanos o degradantes, o a un tercer
Estado desde el cual pueda ser enviado a uno en el cual pueda correr dichos

– De acuerdo a lo establecido en la Convención sobre los Derechos del Niño y
otras normas de protección de los derechos humanos, cualquier decisión
sobre la devolución de una niña o niño al país de origen o a un tercer país
seguro sólo podrá basarse en los requerimientos de su interés superior,
teniendo en cuenta que el riesgo de vulneración de sus derechos humanos
puede adquirir manifestaciones particulares y específicas en razón de la

– La obligación estatal de establecer y seguir procedimientos justos y
eficientes para poder identificar a los potenciales solicitantes de asilo y
determinar la condición de refugiado a través de un análisis adecuado e
individualizado de las peticiones con las correspondientes garantías, debe
incorporar los componentes específicos desarrollados a la luz de la
protección integral debida a todos las niñas y niños, aplicando a cabalidad
los principios rectores y, en especial, lo referente al interés superior de la
niña o del niño y su participación.

– Cualquier órgano administrativo o judicial que deba decidir acerca de la
separación familiar por expulsión motivada por la condición migratoria de
uno o ambos progenitores debe emplear un análisis de ponderación, que
contemple las circunstancias particulares del caso concreto y garantice una
decisión individual, priorizando en cada caso el interés superior de la niña o
del niño. En aquellos supuestos en que la niña o el niño tiene derecho a la
nacionalidad del país del cual uno o ambos progenitores pueden ser
expulsados, o bien cumple con las condiciones legales para residir
permanentemente allí, los Estados no pueden expulsar a uno o ambos
progenitores por infracciones migratorias de carácter administrativo, pues se
sacrifica de forma irrazonable o desmedida el derecho a la vida familiar de la
niña o del niño.

– En atención a que las obligaciones determinadas precedentemente se
refieren a un tema tan propio, complejo y cambiante de la época actual,
ellas deben ser entendidas como parte del desarrollo progresivo del Derecho
Internacional de los Derechos Humanos, proceso en el que,
consecuentemente, esta Opinión Consultiva se inserta.

La posibilidad de emitir Opiniones Consultivas es parte de la función consultiva de
la Corte, de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 64.1 de la Convención
Americana y los artículos 70 a 75 del Reglamento de la Corte.

En virtud de esta función la Corte responde a consultas que formulan los Estados miembros de la  OEA o los órganos de la misma acerca de: i) la compatibilidad de las normas internas con la Convención Americana, y b) la interpretación de la Convención o de los tratados concernientes a la protección de los derechos humanos en los Estados Americanos.

En el ejercicio de esta función la Corte Interamericana ha examinado
diversos temas relevantes que han permitido esclarecer diversas cuestiones del
derecho internacional americano vinculadas a la Convención Americana, entre
otras: restricciones a la pena de muerte; la colegiación obligatoria de periodistas, y
el derecho a la información sobre la asistencia consular en el marco de las garantías
del debido proceso legal, condición jurídica y de los derechos de los migrantes

Fonte: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/comunicados/cp_19_14.pdf

ONU – “Iraqi civilians suffering ‘horrific’ persecution, ethnic cleansing – UN rights chief”

The United Nations human rights chief today condemned the appalling and horrific crimes against humanity being committed daily in Iraq by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and associated armed groups.

“[ISIL] is systematically targeting men, women and children based on their ethnic, religious or sectarian affiliation and is ruthlessly carrying out widespread ethnic and religious cleansing in the areas under its control,” said UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, in a statement to the press.

The violations include targeted killings, forced conversions, abductions, trafficking, slavery, sexual abuse, destruction of places of religious and cultural significance, and the besieging of entire communities because of ethnic, religious or sectarian affiliation.

Ms. Pillay said among those directly targeted have been Christians, Yezidi, Shabaks, Turkomen, Kaka’e and Sabaeans.

In Nineveh Governorate, hundreds of mostly Yezidi individuals were reported killed and up to 2,500 kidnapped at the beginning of August. Of those who refused to convert, witnesses report that the men were executed while the women and their children were handed over to ISIL fighters as slaves.

Similarly, in Cotcho village in Southern Sinjar, ISIL killed and abducted hundreds of Yezidis on 15 August. Reports indicate, again, that the male villagers were killed while women and children were taken away to unknown locations.

“UN staff members in Iraq have been receiving harrowing phone calls from besieged civilians who are surviving in terrible conditions, with little or no access to humanitarian aid,” Ms. Pillay said. “One of the women abducted by ISIL managed to call our staff, and told them that her teenage son and daughter were among the many who had been raped and sexually assaulted by IS gunmen. Another said her son had been raped at a checkpoint.”

At least 13,000 members of the Shia Turkmen community in Amirli in Salah al-Din Governorate, among them 10,000 women and children, have been besieged by ISIL since 15 June. Residents are enduring harsh conditions with severe food and water shortages, and a complete absence of medical services – and there are fears of a possible imminent massacre, said Ms. Pillay.

“The Government of Iraq and the Kurdistan region of Iraq, and the international community must take all necessary measures and spare no effort to protect members of ethnic and religious communities, who are particularly vulnerable, and to secure their return to their places of origin in safety and dignity,” said the High Commissioner.


The effect of the ongoing conflict on children is catastrophic, she said. According to interviews by UN human rights monitors with displaced families, ISIL is forcibly recruiting boys aged 15 and above. ISIL has also reportedly been deliberately positioning the boys at the front-line in battle situations, as human shields.

The Human Rights Office of the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq has also verified reports of a massacre of prisoners and detainees in Mosul’s Badoush Prison on 10 June. According to interviews with 20 survivors and 16 witnesses of the massacre, ISIL gunmen loaded between 1,000 and 1,500 prisoners onto trucks and transported them to a nearby uninhabited area, Ms. Pillay said.

There, armed men asked the Sunnis to separate themselves from the others. Around 100 prisoners who joined the Sunni group were suspected by ISIL not to be Sunni and were subjected to individual checks based on how they prayed and their place of origin. Sunni inmates were ordered back on the trucks and left the scene. ISIL gunmen then yelled insults at the remaining prisoners, lined them up in four rows, ordered them to kneel and opened fire. Up to 670 prisoners were reportedly killed.


“Such cold-blooded, systematic and intentional killings of civilians, after singling them out for their religious affiliation may amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity,” Ms. Pillay said.

“I urge the international community to ensure that the perpetrators of these vicious crimes do not enjoy impunity. Any individual committing, or assisting in the commission of international crimes, must be held accountable according to law.”

Fonte: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=48551#.U_zRT_ldVBu

CtIDH – “Importancia de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos”

Publicado em 13/08/2013

El Centro de Derechos Humanos de la Facultad Libre de derechos de Monterrey entrevista a Pablo Saavedra, Secretario Ejecutivo de la Corte Interamericana sobre la importancia y trascendencia de la misma.